Robust Markers and Sample Sizes for Multicenter Trials of Huntington Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The identification of sensitive biomarkers is essential to validate therapeutics for Huntington disease (HD). We directly compare structural imaging markers across the largest collective imaging HD dataset to identify a set of imaging markers robust to multicenter variation and to derive upper estimates on sample sizes for clinical trials in HD. METHODS: We used 1 postprocessing pipeline to retrospectively analyze T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans from 624 participants at 3 time points, from the PREDICT-HD, TRACK-HD, and IMAGE-HD studies. We used mixed effects models to adjust regional brain volumes for covariates, calculate effect sizes, and simulate possible treatment effects in disease-affected anatomical regions. We used our model to estimate the statistical power of possible treatment effects for anatomical regions and clinical markers. RESULTS: We identified a set of common anatomical regions that have similarly large standardized effect sizes (>0.5) between healthy control and premanifest HD (PreHD) groups. These included subcortical, white matter, and cortical regions and nonventricular cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). We also observed a consistent spatial distribution of effect size by region across the whole brain. We found that multicenter studies were necessary to capture treatment effect variance; for a 20% treatment effect, power of >80% was achieved for the caudate (n = 661), pallidum (n = 687), and nonventricular CSF (n = 939), and, crucially, these imaging markers provided greater power than standard clinical markers. INTERPRETATION: Our findings provide the first cross-study validation of structural imaging markers in HD, supporting the use of these measurements as endpoints for both observational studies and clinical trials. ANN NEUROL 2020;87:751-762.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.315 | 0.584 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".